| | Author | Message |
|---|
Iseult  
| | #1 posted October 26, 2009 at 4:55pm (EST) |
Here is the deal: I signed up with Manpower few months ago. After all the promises they ended up offering me this part time position, 7pm to 11pm, Monday to Friday for Manulife Financial (one of the largest Canadian insurance companies). I was unhappy with the posting but figured I can keep it until I found something better.
A week ago, Adecco calls me up and tells me they found something for me because of my, albeit limited, bilingualism. It's a 9am to 5pm full time position.
The problem - Adecco's position is for the same company. I asked Adecco before agreeing if it's ethical what I'm doing and they assured me that there should be no problem. However, when I called Manpower to tell them I quit the posting the lady gave me crap about it. She sounded very concerned and told me I shouldn't be doing it. I told them it wasn't me who found the position, it was Adecco. She said that she will contact my current supervisor at Manulife and discuss my situation with her.
What do I do? I really want this other position. I am at the point where I'm nearly financially disabled and I really need a full time position. Also, 7-11 is killing me. I really don't want this opprtunity to slip. I am supposed to start on Wednesday.
Help!!! | Irene007  
| | #2 posted October 26, 2009 at 5:16pm (EST) |
Can you talk to the Addeco people? (Addeco is the agency, right?) | Iseult
| | #3 posted October 26, 2009 at 5:28pm (EST) |
Yes, I will call them tomorrow the first thing after I hear from Manpower. I'm so angry right now about it and it's nearly the time I need to leave for my stupid part time job. | FauxLo  
| | #4 posted October 26, 2009 at 5:31pm (EST) |
Tell the lady at Manpower to shut the fudge up and let Adecco figure it all out.  | Iseult
| | #5 posted October 26, 2009 at 5:38pm (EST) |
Can I though?
I'm still an employee of Manpower and did sign a contract with them.
I would love to. There are plenty of things I want to say to her. | FauxLo
| | #6 posted October 26, 2009 at 5:41pm (EST) |
Manpower is a temping agency. They didn't provide you with what you wanted and you're not obligated to keep working a position that doesn't best suit your needs. You should ask her how Adecco is providing positions for the very same company that Manpower has access to, and then tell her if she isn't able to compete with Adecco that Manpower isn't worthy of pimping you out. | FauxLo
| | #7 posted October 26, 2009 at 5:43pm (EST) |
The company you're working for now didn't buy your contract from Manpower, did they? That is the only way there would be a problem, otherwise you're fine to do as you please. But I've never heard of a company buying a part-time employee's contract from a temp agency. And your obligation to Manpower is purely conditional.
| Richard47
| | #8 posted October 26, 2009 at 5:43pm (EST) |
Though I do not know if it (this stipulation) was contained in your employment package with Manpower, there is usually a fee Manulife Financial would have to pay (Manpower) if they wanted to hire you directly, as Manpower is receiving a much higher per hour rate than you would get in your position, so (in essence), Manpower would be losing money...and every place of employment would do this the moment they found someone that they wanted permanently...so there has to be some benefit for Manpower to let you go. Sometimes there is a six month waiting period after you leave Manpower before you can work (independently) for the client that you were working for. But since you were not 'working' at Adecco...I do not know if this could legally be applied to you. You need to read what is said in your employment package (legally, they have to tell you about this stipulation). Manpower may include this stipulation for all of theit clients (in that case Adecco would have to pay Manpower a fee) or just the client that you were previously working for (Manulife). But it is usually a yes or no policy. Whether Manpower will hold Adecco to this stipulation is a good question....as if they did, they may lose Adecco as a client and also lose money in the long run. So first, see what the official policy is...and then see if Manpower could 'waive' this for the sake of keeping a client. If they won't, Adecco will be changed to employ you. (I do not think that Adecco approaching you would alter any of this) *This is not so much an ethical issue, but more like a financial one* | EyesOfCharisma
| | #9 posted October 26, 2009 at 10:18pm (EST) |
Their contracts are really generic. I have worked through many temp services and it is no worries. Just take the Addeco position and don't give Manpower another thought. | southernyankee
| | #10 posted October 26, 2009 at 11:04pm (EST) |
It sounds like this Adecco found a loophole where they can hire you but not pay the temp agency their cut. My guess is that what Adecco is doing isn't illegal (in the criminal sense at least), but probably violates their contract with Manpower. If you/Adecco get busted doing this, my guess is that you and Adecco will be blacklisted by Manpower (and other temp agencies) for life. But you'd still have your job at Adecco (unless they fire you for some reason, and then you'd be screwed). At worse, Manpower would probably try to sue Adecco in civil court, but I doubt it would become a criminal matter.
Then again, I don't know Canadian law. | Iseult
| | #11 posted October 27, 2009 at 1:23am (EST) |
Richard47 wrote:
> Though I do not know if it (this stipulation)
> was contained in your employment package with
> Manpower, there is usually a fee Manulife Financial
> would have to pay (Manpower) if they wanted to
> hire you directly, as Manpower is receiving a
> much higher per hour rate than you would get in
> your position, so (in essence), Manpower would
> be losing money...and every place of employment
> would do this the moment they found someone that
> they wanted permanently...so there has to be some
> benefit for Manpower to let you go. Sometimes
> there is a six month waiting period after you
> leave Manpower before you can work (independently)
> for the client that you were working for. But
> since you were not 'working' at Adecco...I do
> not know if this could legally be applied to you.
> You need to read what is said in your employment
> package (legally, they have to tell you about
> this stipulation). Manpower may include this stipulation
> for all of theit clients (in that case Adecco
> would have to pay Manpower a fee) or just the
> client that you were previously working for (Manulife).
> But it is usually a yes or no policy. Whether
> Manpower will hold Adecco to this stipulation
> is a good question....as if they did, they may
> lose Adecco as a client and also lose money in
> the long run. So first, see what the official
> policy is...and then see if Manpower could 'waive'
> this for the sake of keeping a client. If they
> won't, Adecco will be changed to employ you. (I
> do not think that Adecco approaching you would
> alter any of this) *This is not so much an ethical
> issue, but more like a financial one*
Exactly. However, the way lady put it when we were on the phone, it's under 'ethics something' section of my contract. I'll try to dig out my contract first thing tomorrow morning and read over it.
Btw, you understand the issue very well. Do you have a lot of experience with staffing agencies? | Iseult
| | #12 posted October 27, 2009 at 1:25am (EST) |
EyesOfCharisma wrote:
> Their contracts are really generic. I have worked
> through many temp services and it is no worries.
> Just take the Addeco position and don't give
> Manpower another thought.
I'm thinking now that I made mistake for letting the Manpower lady ever know what I was going for - should've just called her and told her that I won't be able to continue with the assignment.
Now I've opened my big fat mouth and the Manpower lady is going to call my current supervisor at work first thing tomorrow morning. But I'm not giving up - I'm going to fight for the position because it's what I've wanted. | Iseult
| | #13 posted October 27, 2009 at 1:26am (EST) |
southernyankee wrote:
> It sounds like this Adecco found a loophole where
> they can hire you but not pay the temp agency
> their cut. My guess is that what Adecco is doing
> isn't illegal (in the criminal sense at least),
> but probably violates their contract with Manpower.
> If you/Adecco get busted doing this, my guess
> is that you and Adecco will be blacklisted by
> Manpower (and other temp agencies) for life.
> But you'd still have your job at Adecco (unless
> they fire you for some reason, and then you'd
> be screwed). At worse, Manpower would probably
> try to sue Adecco in civil court, but I doubt
> it would become a criminal matter.
>
> Then again, I don't know Canadian law.
Yes, let's hope it doesn't get to there. | Iseult
| | #14 posted October 27, 2009 at 1:29pm (EST) |
Just to let y'all know, everything's fixed and I am starting tomorrow  xoxoxo | EyesOfCharisma
| | #15 posted October 27, 2009 at 1:35pm (EST) |
GREAT!!!! I am happy it all worked out!!  | Richard47
| | #16 posted October 27, 2009 at 5:47pm (EST) |
Iseult wrote:
> Btw, you understand the issue very well. Do you have a lot of experience
> with staffing agencies?
Yes, in California I worked for a medical temp agency (as an x-ray tech). I worked in one doctors office (through the agency) and then wanted to hire me directly. Since he worked with the agency(as he was a client) , he knew the policy and knew that he had to pay (the agency), so he did but during this process, I learned everything that I could about how they operated. Adecco should know the policy of Manpower as well, as they are a client so this 'should' be a relatively easy issue to rectify. (I don't think that Adecco found a 'loophole' and are trying to cheat Manpower. Professional businesses do not do that) | southernyankee
| | #17 posted October 28, 2009 at 12:15am (EST) |
I've worked for a temp agency only once, for a very short span of time. Well, it was 3 days to be exact. This was while waiting for another job and someone was looking for someone to work a 6 week gig, so a temp agency referred me to them. I even told them (both the temp agency and the other guy) in advance that my offer could come in any day now, but they took me anyway. 3 days later it did, so that was that. I doubt they took it personally, and the temp agency already had someone lined up anyway. Thats what temp agencies do. They know the risks, and willing to take them, because they're good at it. I don't remember signing any ethics agreements to not work directly for anyone to bypass the temp agency.
Right now I work for the government as a contractor, and their set up is really weird. They have all sorts of byzantine rules and regulations to keep poaching by competing firms, and the government bans their own employees of ever working for a contracting company that works in any project that they've worked in the past. Off course the government works a lot different than the private sector, which doesn't have the byzantine red tape. Technically, I am not supposed to even buy my buddy a beer if he works for the government on my project without reporting it. But I digress. | southernyankee
| | #18 posted October 28, 2009 at 12:27am (EST) |
"(I don't think that Adecco found a 'loophole' and are trying to cheat Manpower. Professional businesses do not do that)"
The loophole is that you can have more than one company incorporated as separate entities, which are themselves subsidiaries of a larger company. So you get one of your temps to quit the first company and get hired to the "other" company, even though its the same people. This would probably get you blacklisted by the temping agencies, since they refuse to do business with anyone they choose to, but there likely won't be legal consequences. Even if you could prove damages, the costs of taking someone to court and then going after the assets of a fly-by-night wouldn't be worth it. Whether or not its professional is another issue.
I used to work for the state, and Louisiana (especially New Orleans) used to have some very crapty contractors. If you knew half the crap some of these fly-by-nights tried (or succeeded) to pulled, you probably wouldn't be so hard on Adecco. Based on that, I would argue Adecco is relatively reputable.
| southernyankee
| | #19 posted October 28, 2009 at 12:41am (EST) |
I stand corrected. I just found this.
http://www.indeed.com/forum/cmp/Adecco/Some-Good-A...
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories...
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/adecco-c...
I googled Adecco, and for some reason Manpower came up too. It looks like they're both competing temp agencies. Google "Adecco Manpower" or "Adecco Manpower complaints". | Melf
| | #20 posted October 28, 2009 at 7:17am (EST) |
Go Iseult, go Iseult! | Iseult
| | #21 posted October 28, 2009 at 7:48pm (EST) |
Thanks, Melf!
SY: I did a quick research on the two companies few days ago and those were results I came up with, too. I did part on good terms with Manpower and they told me that if I ever need their help, not to hesitate to come to them. I don't know how true that is, but it was nice hearing it. Hope Adecco turns out okay. | southernyankee
| | #22 posted October 28, 2009 at 10:27pm (EST) |
Good luck with everything. | Richard47
| | #23 posted October 29, 2009 at 2:51am (EST) |
"This would probably get you blacklisted by the temping agencies, since they refuse to do business with anyone they choose to, but there likely won't be legal consequences".
I still believe that treachery and deceit are not normal business operations, and I have spent thirty five years working in the business world. Why would a reputable operation risk receiving a damaging reputation for the cost of a few dollars? I was lead to believe that both Manpower and Adecco were major enterprises. I am sure all loopholes would have already been investigated and, thus, corrected contractually. And asking an employee to engage in such shenanigans is simply unethical and a waste of valuable time. Why jeopardize a good client relationship? As for the companies themselves, I was under the impression that Adecco was a client of Manpower and had no idea that they were 'both' temp agencies. Why would one temp agency been under the auspices of another? But this is beside the fact. | Richard47
| | #24 posted October 29, 2009 at 2:52am (EST) |
I am glad that everything worked out for you. | Iseult
| | #25 posted October 29, 2009 at 5:03pm (EST) |
Thanks, guys.
This means that whoever I'm the Secret Santa for will get a decent present
And I can finally return Irene the money I owe her (no, I didn't forget, I was just doing very poorly financially). | EyesOfCharisma
| | #26 posted October 29, 2009 at 5:47pm (EST) |
I owe money to someone on here also.... LOL!! I really need to start making payments to him.. just always short on every day things... I could always just pay him by letting him put it in my butt though too.... | Iseult
| | #27 posted October 29, 2009 at 6:40pm (EST) |
So I gather you owe money to Scott? | EyesOfCharisma
| | #28 posted October 29, 2009 at 6:41pm (EST) |
lol yes.... |
| You must Sign On before you can post a message to this forum. |
|
- Twitter 
- Facebook 